Christian Nationalism = Christian Patriotism

It is now impossible to ignore the Christian Nationalist Movement in the United States. We’ve got United States Congressmen self-identifying as “Christian Nationalists.” Every news outlet in America has covered it (almost all negative), and the Democrat Left is practically going hysterical over it. It has to be discussed, defined and crystalized. That’s why I wrote the The Declaration of Christian Nationalism.

To put it bluntly, Christian Nationalism is Christian Patriotism.

I know there are a lot of people who will take issue with me on that, but let me be clear, when the overwhelming vast majority of Christians in the United States use the term “Christian Nationalism,” they’re talking about Christian Patriotism and nothing more. So in the purely American sense, Christian Nationalism and Christian Patriotism are the exact same thing.

In The Declaration of Christian Nationalism, I defined Christian Nationalism as a “movement” and not an “organization.” I did this quite deliberately. A “movement” is the coming together of different people behind a common cause or causes. Movements are often messy and unorganized, but can still be very effective.

Whereas an “organization” has a leader, or leaders, and structure. I have no desire to ever see a Christian Nationalist “organization.” That would be disastrous in my opinion, and could very well work in competition against churches, striking torn allegiances between Christians who love America, versus those who love their churches. There should be no division here. We should always be able to love both. This is why the Declaration I wrote defines Christian Nationalism as a “movement” and not an “organization.”

The only organizations that should ever exist in a Christian Nationalist Movement should be churches. That’s it. Period. Nothing else.

In the Declaration, I defined Christian Nationalism as one and the same as Christian Patriotism. In the minds of most Christians in America, this is what is meant anyway. Nationalism actually has two definitions. The first is simply patriotism. The second can be more extreme, which borders on idolatry from a Christian perspective. It could be the idolatry of a race, a culture, a heritage or a government. None of which is good.

White Nationalists (White Supremacists and NeoNazis) often like to shroud their rhetoric in Christian terminology, and sometimes call themselves “Christian Nationalists” as well, but in reality, they’re just into the idolatry of race. I made it clear in the Declaration, that this too is incompatible with Christianity.

In order for a Christian Nationalist (Christian Patriot) Movement to actually work, it actually has to BE Christian. If it’s not, if its just ethnic-nationalism shrouded in Christian rhetoric, then its doomed to failure. I assert, however, that this is usually not the case when we’re talking about Christian Nationalists in an American sense. The Declaration makes it crystal clear, that true and authentic Christian Nationalism is multi-racial. It can’t be anything else. If it’s not multi-racial, then it could be “Nationalism” but it’s definitely not “Christian.”

What I see happening here are three things…

  1. American Christians (mostly conservative Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics) are seeking to more vigorously assert themselves into American politics. These people often have little problem with the terms “Christian Nationalist” or “Christian Patriot,” because they see it as nothing more than Christians asserting themselves into politics.
  2. Simultaneously, a tiny amount of White Nationalists (extremely small in number) are attempting to insert themselves into this movement under the cloak of “Christian Nationalism.” This is a very common tactic for them actually.
  3. So, the Leftist Mainstream Media has zeroed in on this tiny amount of White Nationalists within the broader Christian Nationalist Movement, stereotypically labelling all Christian Nationalists as White Supremacists. Hence the Leftist Media has now coined the phrase “White Christian Nationalism.”

I assert, however, that you cannot have “White Christian Nationalism.” It simply doesn’t exist. Either you have “Christian Nationalism” (which is really just “Christian Patriotism”), or you have “White Nationalism” which is really just ethnic-nationalism, White Supremacy or NeoNazism. You can have one or the other, Christian Nationalism or White Nationalism, but you cannot have both.

This is because Christianity is incompatible with racism — period.

So let’s stop the propaganda, shall we?

Pick a term.

It’s either White Nationalism or else it is Christian Nationalism (Christian Patriotism), but it cannot be “White Christian Nationalism.” The latter does not exist, except in the minds of NeoNazis and Leftist News Media. To use the term “White Christian Nationalism,” whether uttered by a NeoNazi or a Leftist news anchor, is to put forth the notion that Christianity and racism are somehow compatible. The two are like oil and water. They do not mix.

Certainly, throughout history, some racists have identified as Christians. The fictional television sitcom character Archie Bunker, from “All in the Family” comes to mind as a comical example of this. However, any casual observer of the show could easily tell you that Archie Bunker is a walking contradiction. His personal beliefs on race and nationality don’t match the religion he claims to identify with. This is even brought out in the show multiple times. Archie is a White Nationalist, who would rather identify as a Christian Nationalist, even though nothing about his nationalism is Christian at all, and it’s debatable if he is even a Christian, based on the constant sacrilege and blasphemy he casually utters.

This, however, brings something out that’s worth discussing. Recent studies show that the most racist people who might identify with Christian Nationalism are generally not practicing Christians at all. They might have read the Bible. They may be familiar with Christian terminology. They may even call themselves Christians. However, they almost never go to church. They rarely practice private devotions and almost never pray. These people see Christianity as an ethnic identifier more than a religion. So the solution to the problem of White Supremacy is actually more Christianity, not less, and if an authentically Christian Nationalist (Christian Patriot) movement might push some of those people into a church building, that would be a good thing.

When we look at the people in the headlines identifying as “Christian Nationalists” we don’t see anything that resembles the racism of Archie Bunker, or anything close to that. What we do see, however, are usually Evangelical Christians, and occasionally some orthodox Catholics, who see no problem bringing their religion into politics. I think that is what the Leftist Media fears the most. I would like to give the Leftist Media a little newsflash. Christianity has been doing that for 1,700 years, ever since Constantine the Great signed the Edict of Milan. Christian Nationalism is nothing new folks. What we see going on now is just another manifestation of what Christianity has always done, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The last time America dealt with Christian Nationalism, it ended segregation.

10 Mar 1965, Selma, Alabama, USA — Original caption: Nuns are in the forefront of new civil rights march in Selma, Alabama. Selma City officials halted the marchers less than a block from their starting point and told them no march would be allowed.


  1. This article is completely wrong. Christian Nationalism DOES NOT EQUAL Christian Patriotism.

    Distinct Christian tribal groups should have their own territory, their own state church, and their own governments that defend their religion. This goes for both whites and blacks.

    This was the Biblical model that the Christian world followed up until the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment was nothing but devilish BS.

    It will take time for the nonsense of the Enlightenment to be excised from the states that comprise the USA (and the rest of the Western World), but I have faith it will eventually happen.


    1. I suppose your statement is correct from a strictly Protestant perspective. Protestantism was defined by state churches originally, which did translate over into colonial churches in the original 13 colonies.

      However, this is not the case in Catholicism or Orthodoxy, both of which respect cultural differences but never translate those differences into doctrine or creed. Intercommunion between regional rites and churches is essential to the Catholic and Orthodox models of Christianity.

      As I have said many times on this blog, the Western world is not going through a post-Christian era. It is rather going through a post-Protestant era, as is evidenced very plainly in the rise of nondenominational Evangelical churches, as well as the complete demographic implosion of traditional Protestant denominations. Catholic Churches only seem to be affected by this insofar as they try to imitate Protestant worship styles and liberal theology. Traditional Catholic Churches are booming, as are Eastern Orthodox churches.

      So the issue we are really dealing with is the collapse of traditional Protestantism, and with it, the Protestant model of nation-churches, wherein a particular denominational creed is specific to a certain race, ethnicity and nationality of people. The questions should be asked then: why is that? And in the wake of Evangelicalism’s rise, is it even something we want to return to?


Comments are closed.